Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-385 / 12-0531 Filed May 23, 2012 IN THE INTEREST OF I.T. and A.T., Minor Children, S.T., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Victor G. Lathrop, Associate Juvenile Judge.

A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to his children. AFFIRMED.

Mary Cowdrey of Public Defender's Office, Marshalltown, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and Joshua A. Vander Ploeg, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Jennifer Meyer, Marshalltown, for mother. Bethany Currie of Johnson, Sudenga, Latham, Peglow & O'Hare, P.L.C., Marshalltown, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.

2

BOWER, J. A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to his children. He contends termination is not in the best interest of the child and asks that this court reverse and remand for entry of a permanency order for guardianship. Because termination of the father's parental rights is in the

children's best interests, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The Department of Human Services (DHS) first became involved with the children in 2007 due to their parents' drug use. The parents' drug use and lack of an appropriate home resulted in a child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication in September 2010. After living with their grandmother a short time, the children were placed with an aunt. The parents did not actively participate in the services offered by the DHS to reunite them with the children. They continued abusing marijuana and

methamphetamine. A year passed and the parents made no progress. The children were doing well in their aunt's care, and due to their ages--sixteen and eleven at the time of the termination hearing--the DHS case worker recommended guardianship be transferred to the aunt. However, upon speaking with the children, the worker learned the older child wished to have her parents' rights terminated so she could be adopted by her aunt. directed a termination petition be filed. In November 2011, the father was sent to a residential correctional facility for a probation violation. The father had done nothing to work toward The juvenile court

3

reunification, but at that time he contacted the DHS worker to request regular visits with the children. He began drug treatment, obtained a job, and started attending church. At the February 2012 termination hearing, the father

acknowledged the children could not presently be returned to his care, but believed he could parent the children if given more time. The juvenile court found the State had proved the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, a finding the father does not contest on appeal. The court then weighed the best interests of the children to determine whether the parents' rights should be terminated to allow the aunt to adopt--as she wished to do--or if the children should be placed in the guardianship of the aunt instead. Given the children's need for permanency and the aunt's

willingness to allow the children to continue to have contact with their father, the juvenile court determined termination was in the children's best interests. Both parents' rights were terminated. Only the father appeals. II. Scope and Standard of Review. We review proceedings to terminate parental rights de novo. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 745 (Iowa 2011). We give weight to the juvenile court's

findings of fact, even though we are not bound by them. Id. This is especially true with regard to questions of witness credibility. Id. III. Analysis. The father's sole contention on appeal is that termination is not in the children's best interests. He asks that his rights as a father be preserved by

4

entry of a permanency order for guardianship with the aunt. Because we find termination is in the children's best interests, we affirm. In making the best interest determination, "the court shall give primary consideration to the child's safety, to the best placement for furthering the longterm nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child." N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010). Iowa Code

Download IN THE INTEREST OF I.T. and A.T., Minor Children, S.T., Father, Appellant..pdf

Iowa Law